The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1887-11-30

be within the withdrawal for indemnity purpo-
Some doubt arising to the legality OF
that withdrawal. the case was referred oy this
department to the Attorney general for his
opinion on the question of law That officer held
that the withdrawal was legal, aud that during
its existence Miller could acquire no right or
title to the tract claimed by him and on which
he lived. Whilst recognizing the correctness of
the law. you saw the injustice of the case SO far
the individual settler was affected, and that
hundreds of others were similarly sit
affected. and you directed that such
grants should be SO administered by this depart
ment as, if possible, to protect these settlers
from snch injustice, stating your belief. that
this be done under the provision which de-
clares that these selections shall be made under
the direction of the Secretary of the Interior
After years of waiting. Congress had failed tc
empower the department to make the necessary
surveys whereby some of the grants might be
adjusted. and no immediate prospect of such
surveys was in sight. But law was passed on
March 3. 1887. "a r. s.. 500, whereby the Secre-
tary of the Interior was directed to Immediately
adjust each of the railroad land grants made by
Congress to aid in the construction or railroads
With earnest desire to obey the mandate OF
Congress to give to the corporations their every
right under the laws, and at the same time
follow the directions given by you TO
see that ample protection should be
extended to settlers and those seeking to make
settlement on public lands-a matter which had
been long and utterly overshadowed-I
entered upon a most careful consideration OF the
whole subject of the history and law relating to
land grants and concluded that II the depart
ment was clothed with authority to make in
demnitv Withdrawals. as had been done in so
many instances, the exercise OF that authority
was matter entirely within sound discretion,
and not a matter of legal obligation IN any
respect; that the Same sound discretion which.
in the interest OF the companies, justified said
Withdrawals, now demanded peremptoriy in
the public interest. speedy revocation OF the
same. and that the most effective way of expe-
diting an adjustment of the land grants and do
ing exact justice to the companies, guarding and
y~NA. nj he cAtfl Flaws
also, was to permit the public to enter into COM
petition with the companies in the selection of
lands heretofore Withdrawn for indemnity pur-
poses. Accordingly on May g. 1887. with your
approval, rules were laid upon the different
companies for whose benefit Withdrawals had
been made to show cause, by q certain day, why
said Withdrawals should not be revoked Some
of the companies failed to show cause; others
filed answers asserting to the revocatons. as
they had received satisfaction of the grants.
either in full or far possible others assented
on condition that lands covered by selections al
ready made should be excepted from the order
of revocation, and other companies objected
to the order of revocation as illegal and
violation of chartered rights. Briefs were
filed and oral arguments accorded to the
counsel of such companies as desired to be heard,
all of which were fully and carefully considered,
due to the importance of the questions
and the magnitude of the interests involved;
and Aug. Is. 1887, my views were fully ex-
pressed in a decision rendered in the case of the
Atlantic 81 Pacific Railroad Company, which, by
answer and argument, raised nearly all the OBJ
jections that were presented in part only by
number of other companies. send herewith
copy of the whole text of that opinion, in which
these objections were answered seratim. Two
days later the orders Withdrawing the lands
within the indemnity limits and reserving the
same from settlement were revoked. and the
lands restored TO the public domain and to settle
ment, first in the cases of two companies which
had not answered; second, in those which,
answering, assented; third in the cases of the
companies which set up defenses coming within
the rulings in the foregoing opinion.
''In the congressional grants to the following
the St. Paul & Northern Pacific, the st. Paul,
Minneapolis & Manitoba the St Paul 81 Sioux
City, the Sioux City & St. Paul and the Winona
& ST. Peter-it is provided that upon filling the
branches it shall be the duty of the Secretary
of the Interior to withdraw from market the
lands embraced within the provisions of the
act making the grant In consequence Of this
provision these roads were omitted from the
orders of restoration. 1t will be seen from the
order passed in the Atlantic & Pacific case, and
which applied to the other companies
mutatis mutandis, that, whilst it was determined
that the lands in question should not longer be
withheld from appropriation under the settle
ment laws, every precaution possible was taken
protect the legal rights of the corporations.
Following this action, instructions were su6se
quently issued to the Commissioner of the Gen
eral Land Office to detail all the availa BILE force
IN his Office to the work of adjusting the road
grants, and proceed rapidly possible with
the The amount OF land re-
stored to the public domain through the orders
revoking the indemnity withdrawals is stated
by the Commissioner of the General Land
Office to be 81 323, 600 acres. 1 beg to refer to
what has been said in another part of this re-
port in relation to the imperative necessity of
a appropriations for the surveys. without which
com lete adjustment of these railroad grants is
not practicable at an early day."
----0.-----